I am the one and only authority on the God I find worth believing in.You have made up your own theology and appointed yourself sole authority on that theology. I'm with Lausten. There is no sense debating you on this topic. Moreover, his entire argument logically falsifies itself. What is this argument which falsifies itself? All I see established in this thread is that I have a different idea of God than the one you don't believe in. So you don't believe in this god who cannot limit Himself and I don't believe in that god either. But for some strange reason you aren't even capable of bracketing a different idea of God. You are strangely dogmatic and inflexible about something you don't believe in. The fact is I have demonstrated there is NOTHING inconsistent in being able to limit oneself and therefore nothing logically inconsistent about a god who can limit himself. But since it doesn't fit with your theology of disbelief you indulge in willful ignorance. I certainly do not require you to believe in any god or show any interest in my beliefs. But it is willfully ignorant to insist on something which I have actually demonstrated to be false. Yeah I get it. You are really proud of being able to take apart some Christian argument you found on a website. But it is only wishful thinking to imagine you have canned the final answer to every Christian's understanding of God. It is really just lazy. You need to accept the undeniable reality that Christian belief is a vast spectrum.
For aome reason, when I read Mitchellmckain's posts, the word "posterbator" comes into my mind. Arrogant posterbator, actually, LLOk that's it! I am fucking done with this forum! You can all go to hell!
And you are an authority on God?I am the one and only authority on the God I find worth believing in. Of course, because your God is a creation of your imagination.
These limitations are an expression of His omnipotence and product of His own will. The highlighted sentence IS a contradiction!
No it is not.Yes it is.
No one has a list of what God cannot do.
Incorrect. You say that God cannot create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. I say He can. You say God cannot impose limitations upon himself. I say He can. There is nothing logically contradictory about imposing limitations on yourself. I can do it. But apparently your god (whether you believe in it or not) cannot.Right, God made the laws of Nature and they are perfect. That is why we call them *constants*. It would be illogical for a God to say, "today I am going to change my laws, because it pleases Me to do so.
There is only one thing God cannot do, and that is *contradict* himself at the same time! That's it. End of the list.
And there is another one. I say God CAN contradict Himself if he so chooses. This is not the same as saying that omnipotence does not includes the ability to do things which are a logical contradictions. Logical contradictions are meaningless and therefore nothing at all -- thus this adds nothing to any list of things God cannot do.Logical contradictions are not meaningless. It means that only one action is logically correct and the other false. And it is you who is posing the contradiction. Should I conclude that was a meaningless statement?
But I repeat. There is nothing logically contradictory about imposing limitations on yourself. I can do it -- proving it is not logically contradictory. Example? I can chop off my right leg thereby taking away my ability to walk. I can poke out my own eyes thereby limiting myself to sightless darkness. This proves that limiting oneself is NOT a logical contradiction. Therefore, there is NOTHING logically contradictory to the claim that God can impose limitations on himself and thus create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it.If your leg has gangrene, the logical thing to do is to cut it off, whereas cutting a healthy leg off has nothing to do with limiting oneself, in fact it would be an indication of unlimited madness.
Not that I give a hoot. I am an atheist and am merely indulging YOUR illogical HUMAN religious dogma. Get it?
You are not the first atheist I have encountered with a dogmatic theology. Yes I think it is pretty strange. Habits are hard to get rid of, and habits of thought may be the hardest of all to change.I don't have a theology of any kind, therefore I have no theological dogma. Why don't you look into the mirror and ask yourself that question.
For aome reason, when I read Mitchellmckain's posts, the word "posterbator" comes into my mind. Arrogant posterbator, actually, LLOk that's it! I am fucking done with this forum! You can all go to hell! Aw. I feel like we should sing a song or something. I hope he learned something from this encounter. I know he hates this, but I can also relate to what seems to have set off. There's a point in your letting of god(s) where you think you've come up with something that works, something that you can argue for and sound like you got it figured out, or least it's good enough that people should really try to understand you. I started my blog at that point. I kept trying to figure out those arguments. Then I figured out how logic and reasoning actually worked, and argued myself right of out of religion. The place to start, if you're still around Mitch, is not what God can or can't do, start with A=A, and Not A can't equal A. It's the beginning of logic. Build your worldview starting there.
Aw. I feel like we should sing a song or something.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsV-rQ23bus
Aw. I feel like we should sing a song or something.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsV-rQ23bus VERY nice selection. It would have been SO much more elegant if Mitch had presented that song as his goodbye to the forum, rather than simply saying " I am fucking done with this forum! You can all go to hell!"
VERY nice selection. It would have been SO much more elegant if Mitch had presented that song as his goodbye to the forum, rather than simply saying " I am fucking done with this forum! You can all go to hell!"Yes, it would have. At least Socratus started an interesting thread.
VERY nice selection. It would have been SO much more elegant if Mitch had presented that song as his goodbye to the forum, rather than simply saying " I am fucking done with this forum! You can all go to hell!"Yes, it would have. At least Socratus started an interesting thread. A perfect parody on the omnipotence of God is brutally explained by George Carlin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
For aome reason, when I read Mitchellmckain's posts, the word "posterbator" comes into my mind. Arrogant posterbator, actually, LLOk that's it! I am fucking done with this forum! You can all go to hell! Here's your hat, what's your hurry?
Let me clear up something.
Two individuals are standing on a street corner.
One has a Ph.D. in chemistry, the other has one in English literature.
They are what is known as a pairo’docs.
How’s that for online self-gratification?
Let me clear up something. Two individuals are standing on a street corner. One has a Ph.D. in chemistry, the other has one in English literature. They are what is known as a pairo'docs. How's that for online self-gratification?Cute pairo'dy, but does not seem to clear up anything pertaining to the OP question. However, I am sure you are self-gratified by that clever twist on words.